# Rose Cottage, 38 Higher Lane, Kerridge - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009068 - **Application reference:** 26/0088/HOUS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part demolition of flat-roof garage and first-floor extension over the garage to form living accommodation (non-determination appeal) - **Site context:** green-belt, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), HE6, HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, SE1, SE7, Cheshire East SADPD 2022 RUR 11, GEN 1, HOU 11, HER 3 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, conservation area, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, visual-openness-only, conservation-area-harm, costs-refused, non-determination, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary First-floor extension over an attached garage at an already-extended stone house in the Kerridge Conservation Area, in the Green Belt. Dismissed. Together with earlier additions, the extension was disproportionate to the original building, so it failed GB7(1)(b) and was inappropriate. There was limited visual openness harm and lower-end harm to the conservation area. The benefits were limited and did not clearly outweigh the harm, so VSC failed. A separate costs application for the Council's delay was refused. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The policy tests relevant to this appeal have not fundamentally changed and I have therefore not referred back to the parties for comment" (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the use of a numerical measure alone would be an over prescriptive approach" (DL ¶11). "Policy GB7.1(b) of the Framework, makes no mention of Green Belt openness or the five purposes listed in Policy GB2. They are therefore not relevant when undertaking an exercise of proportionality" (DL ¶13). "when considered alongside previous additions, disproportionately change the size of the original building" (DL ¶14). RUR 11's original-building date is consistent with fn40 (DL ¶9). - **Openness: limited harm, visual only.** "an impact on visual openness rather than spatial openness, as there would be no physical encroachment by reason of there being no increase in footprint" (DL ¶17). No conflict with GB2 purposes (DL ¶18). - **Conservation area (HE4(2), HE6): harm.** "the harmful effects in this case would be towards the lower end of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶30). The limited public benefits did not outweigh it (DL ¶33). - **Fallback:** the expired 2011 permission "cannot constitute a realistic fallback position" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance GB6(2): the limited considerations "do not individually or cumulatively cross the high threshold of clearly outweighing the harm to the Green Belt and to openness or the 'other' harm to the character and appearance of the CA" (DL ¶46). ## What made the difference The cumulative size of the extensions. Measured against the 1948 original, the earlier two-storey link and garage meant that any meaningful addition would be disproportionate, whatever the local openness effect. The appellants' openness-based argument failed because the (b) test is about size alone. ## Transferable points - The GB7(1)(b) proportionality test is size-based; openness and GB2 purposes are irrelevant to it (DL ¶13). - Percentage guides such as a 30% local-plan figure are not applied mechanically, but past additions count cumulatively against the original building (fn40) (DL ¶9-14). - Building upward with no footprint increase can still harm visual openness (DL ¶16-17). - An expired permission is not a fallback (DL ¶35). - Some inspectors are not consulting parties on the 2026 Framework where the relevant tests are unchanged (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** disproportionate addition; with a 2003 two-storey addition and 1970s garage, increase ~57-112% (Inspector suggests ~80%) vs RUR 11 30% guide; openness and purposes irrelevant to proportionality (DL 9-14) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate; limited visual (not spatial) openness harm as no footprint increase; no conflict with GB2 purposes (DL 16-18, 44-46) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** lower-end harm to Kerridge Conservation Area; limited public benefits do not outweigh; no clear and convincing justification (HE4(2)) (DL 28-33) - **HE6 (Clayton's Tower, Grade II): neutral.** setting preserved (DL 39-41) ## Key facts - Dwelling previously extended by a 2003 two-storey front/side link and a 1970s double garage - Proposal adds a full-width first floor over the garage with no footprint increase; the original building (fn40) is as it stood on 1 July 1948 - Expired 2011 permission for a similar scheme was not a fallback and carried very little weight - Framework not referred back to the parties because the tests "have not fundamentally changed" (DL 4) - Costs application for Council delay refused; the Council behaved unreasonably but the appeal could not have been avoided ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009068 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/026a4cc1-ff58-46da-9af8-356fa1128a49 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/46b33c5a-ca07-4218-8735-131d5b796cfe --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009068.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.